Well, I did try to stick to a bit more sophisticated and civilized register for a while, but I must admit that this self-repeating ape that calls himself gamila is just too fucking annoying for me. So I revert back to my vulgar style and just say this:

gamila, you surely are one of the most gifted trolls I've seen for a while, quite an accomplishment in this wondrous world of the Internet.

So, someone else please continue while I catch my breath. Trying to reason with gamila is like talking to a mushroom: it doesn't respond very well. Hope you others have better luck!

Oh, as a side note, it's not too bad either that by repeating the same seven lines over and over again the guy manages to make us others to extend this thread to 60 posts and counting. In the end, it's difficult to say who looks more stupid he with his twenty word repertoire (of which colin leslie whowasit takes a considerable part) or us still taking part in this conversation...

you won. with selective posting, refusal to discuss the points that have been made to you and your extensive stupidity you manage to piss everyone off. So you win the debate, because there is no point debating with someone putting their hands on their hears and repeating loudly and obnoxiously the same question without acknowledging answers. You seem to think that things are simple, but in science things are usually a bit more complicated than that.

That said I will leave you alone as long as you follow the forum rules, and I let you stay convinced of the superiority of the guy with plenty of letters after his name, a complete ignorance of what he is talking about convinced that you are right. At least once again the internet demonstrate that anyone with the ability to type on a keyboard and enough self righteousness can disseminate the wackiest stupidity to the world. I am starting to regret the pre-Gutenberg time where publishing onebook would take a lifetime and at least develop your manual skills.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

you won. with selective posting, refusal to discuss the points that have been made to you and your extensive stupidity you manage to piss everyone off.

the fact is deans logic is watertight and because you cant refute it you resort to name calinglook the fact is either there is a thing called species in which case you have the colin leslie dean species paradox

but then you have the problem that biologist dont even know what species or phylum arethus all their talk about phylum and species is meaningless nonsense

the problem you face is that what colin leslie dean is putting forward is not found in your text booksand as such if you accept deans points you will eitherfail your examsor be out of step with the orthodoxitythe fact isif deans views where found in text booksyou all would just unquestionally parrot them like you parrot the other texts

Depending on what theory of evolution you follow, different answers can be found for this "paradox." Richard Dawkin's ideas appeal to me the most at the moment.

Evolution is driven, not by population of macro-organisms, but by the combined workings of genetic variation and cumulative selection. In other words, probability is key.

Every variation of DNA has a possibility of existing within one generation of any other variation. The possibility is so large that it is hardly even a factor. Imagine a giant building with many floors filled with every variation of DNA-based organisms lined up spatially according to difference in variation. A Golden Shepard is very close to a Golden Lab, but separated from a Siamese by hundreds of millions of organisms that might never exist at all. Thus the probability of a Golden Sheppard giving birth to a Siamese is inconceivably large, and has probably not happened in the known universe at any time. But the probability that "Organism X" might give birth to an organism some way between it and "Organism Y" is extremely likely. "Species" are simply illusions that occur when you look at a billion-year process at a single moment in time.

The bird mated with the other birds so like it that a modern zoologist would not even notice that they were different. There was no first bird because "bird" is a man-made label applied to things with characteristics similar to another. Before birds were 99.9999% birds and before them were 99.9998% birds.

I believe I've stated that correctly.

Edit: Perhaps the word "percentage" was a bad one to use, because it implies that once you have reached o%, you have switched to a new species. What I am trying to say is that species are irrelevant to evolution, organisms flow seamlessly into each other.

The bird mated with the other birds so like it that a modern zoologist would not even notice that they were different. There was no first bird "

you are self contradictoryfirst you say there was a bird

The bird mated with the other birds

then you say there was no first bird

There was no first bird

followingyou said that the bird mated with other birds

this places you with deans no 2 alternative

2)a whole lot of species A gave birth to a whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happenedwe have a major problemit would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same timewe are told species form due to random mutationssoit is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

then you said in contradiction that there was no first birdif there was no first bird then there cannot be birds now [ which desended from it]

Jasper wrote:What I am trying to say is that species are irrelevant to evolution, organisms flow seamlessly into each other.

True. "Colin" is hung up on the concept of species - he's being overly semantic. Species is just a classification which some organisms fit neatly into, while others do not.

To say that evolution/natural-selection doesn't exist because we can't put 100% certainty into our classifications is ridiculous.

"bird" is just a word we use to describe an organism that possesses a suite of traits - and ostensibly common lineage with other "birds."

Furthermore, what is a "first" organism? Is it the first because it was born with a new mutation? Or is it the first because it is the first time an organism in the population has possessed a particular suite of traits (traits which were present, but not in this specific configuration)? What about litter-mates, was it the first to hatch/be-born? Clearly we're speaking of an organism that is different from its parent population, but by how much?

Semantics aside - the "first" organism can typically still mate with its parent population. It's offspring will be variable, but those that posess favorable traits will ultimately become more abundant.

So betaBird gives birth to Bird1.0. Bird1.0 mates with a betaBird and has a mixed clutch of betaBirds, Bird1.0s, and intergrades between. The offspring go on to reproduce - also mating with betaBirds - producing a mix of betas and 1.0s. Over generations it turns out that Bird1.0s have a selective advantage and after a while betaBirds are extirpated.

gamila I expect more of a response to this than another quotation or a one-liner.

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

you use the word bird1.0 to distinguish it from betabird and parent organism and vice versaat some point in this incest you are going to get the first BIRDso what did this first BIRD mate with

if your beta bird mates with its parent and bird1.0 mates with a beta bird they must be the same species

To say that evolution/natural-selection doesn't exist because we can't put 100% certainty into our classifications is ridiculous.

"bird" is just a word we use to describe an organism that possesses a suite of traits - and ostensibly common lineage with other "birds."

Semantics aside - the "first" organism can typically still mate with its parent population. It's offspring will be variable, but those that posess favorable traits will ultimately become more abundant.

you are left with a dillema1)in order to resolve the dean paradoxthe dean paradox makes you abandon the word species in which case your biology is destroyed

or 2)you used the word bird signifying it is different from its parent organismyour so called science uses the word speciesas suchyou have the dean paraodox

in order to resolve the dean paradoxthe dean paradox makes you abandon the word species in which case your biology is destroyedand all this is meaningless nonsense

gamila wrote:you are left with a dillema 1)in order to resolve the dean paradox the dean paradox makes you abandon the word species in which case your biology is destroyed

or 2)you used the word bird signifying it is different from its parent organism your so called science uses the word species as such you have the dean paraodox

1 - Biology is not destroyed by an unclear definition of the word "species". Your semantical paradox fails.2 - I don't use the word "bird" for this very reason. It calls to mind a nuthatch being born from a velociraptor egg or some such ridiculousness. Instead I examine a linear progression of genetic change in organisms that have some or all characteristics of what we would call a bird (Birds are not species btw, try Class (Aves))

gamila wrote:you use the word bird1.0 to distinguish it from betabird and parent organism and vice versaat some point in this incest you are going to get the first BIRDso what did this first BIRD mate with

if your beta bird mates with its parent and bird1.0 mates with a beta bird they must be the same species

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying betaBirds are the parent population (though they may already be in a state of evolutionary flux, thus "beta"). I'm also saying Bird1.0 is analogous to (but not the same as) your "first bird." So I am answering your question, but I'm not using your words because they create false assumptions.

In my example I'm making no attempt to declare anything as a species - only varying grades of organism in the evolution/selection process. Your "first BIRD" would be my bird1.0 WITH THE DISTINCTION that this "bird" is not necessarily a new species - it is just the first of its kind to posess all traits which can be used to identify it as a bird rather than something else. This difference could have been something as simple as a chromosomal mutation with little to no outward effect. The Bird1.0 would still be able to mate with other betaBirds (parent population) but the new genes would be spread over subsequent generations and natural selection would kick in.

Let me address "species" for a moment. Species, to me, are essentially ecologically stable gene cohorts. They exist as a "species" because their particular genes and physiology have enabled them to prosper and reproduce to a point at which there are many organisms that share very closely the same characteristics that enabled their ecological success. Think of them as existing in evolutionary plateaus - where there is the least resistance to their current genetic configuration. While populations rest in these stable states, they can typically be classified as species - but remove that stable state, introduce genetic variation, change selective pressures and the lines between species will likely become blurred.

Take for example; dogs. Selective pressure on Canis lupus, pre domestication, was probably fairly static and the species was clearly defineable. Introduce domestication and breeding by humans, and now we have many lineages of Canis whose specific identity are questionable/unknown. Canis familiaris? Canis lupus ssp. familiaris? It's all jumbled.

So if you imagine a graph in which the change in organisms' genes over time is mapped, you'll see varying rates of change, interspersed by periods of relative stability. It is during those states of stability that we can, with some confidence, consider a group of organisms a species or perhaps subspecies. At other points on the graph, we can only speculate an identity of individual organisms based on what we percieve their lineage to be.

Getting back to my example: betaBird would represent a population of organisms in evolutionary flux due to changes in their environment or genes. It's not what we would consider a stable "species." Bird1.0 would be theoretically the first organism in that population that possesses the traits that may one day become the standard in a "stable state." However, by no means is Bird1.0 a new species. It's just a representative of an extreme variation within the parent population.

*edit below this line* ---------------------PS: What the hell is with your wikipedia quote? Don't you understand by now that that irritates the crap out of people? If they want to read the info you link to, they'll click on your link... You REALLY need to control your impulse to spam quotes. (Your first two quotes were appropriate, I'm just talking about your last, very large wikipedia quote)

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

you say there are speciesyet biologist cant tell us what species or phylum arethus with out knowing what species arethus all there talk of species this species that is meaningless nonsense

The problem is that is your opinion. Who is Dean to tell us what we understand? I know exactly what a species is, and so do scientists, no matter what you say Gamila.

The only point you have is that species is a taxonomic approximation. An owl defines an organism with a certain similar phenotype. They are unique and DEFINABLE.

Approximations are used in chemistry also. One example is in stoichiometry. Moles are approximations of the number of atoms or molecules for an element or compound. A chemist would never know if he is a hundred atoms off when he is mixing chemicals--but he still gets the right reaction, because it is close enough to produce what he wants. Because he used an approximation in his formula does not negate the product produced, NOR CHEMISTRY.

THE SAME EXAMPLE COULD BE USED WITH THE PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM AND THE BUILDING OF A HOUSE. I could cut a rafter using the the P.T. for a height from a center point of 131 and 1/3 cm and a distance from the center point (forming a right angle) of 146 and 1/3 cm. One third is a repeating decimal which is an approximation, but yet my rafter will fit in the real world Gamila.

P.S. Do you understand what semantics are, because that is what you're using? Look it up.

"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

with out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species is then he is talking meaningless nonsense